DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 9 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al (US 2011/0114502).
Cole et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 2A and paragraphs [0042] and [0081]) an electrolysis apparatus comprising an anode module (combination of 118 and 114a) configured to electrochemically oxidize water to generate oxygen gas (128) and hydrogen ions (i.e. protons), a cathode module (combination of 120 and 114b) arranged opposite to the anode module and configured to electrochemically reduce carbon dioxide to generate a reduced material, and a separation module (product extraction 110) configured to receive the reduced material from the cathode module and to separate a desired product from the reduced material. Cole et al teach that the reduced material may include ethanol and acetone (see paragraph [0042]) and that the separation module (110) was designed to separate products such as acetone from the electrolyte leaving the cathode module.
Regarding claim 2, the cathode module of Cole et al included a cathode compartment (114b) accommodating carbon dioxide, a cathode (120) disposed on one side of the cathode compartment and receiving carbon dioxide from the cathode compartment, wherein the protons generated in the anode module were moved from the anode module to the cathode (via separator 116). The cathode electrochemically reduced the carbon dioxide by using the protons to generate the reduced material.
Regarding claim 5, the anode module of Cole et al included an anode compartment (114a) and an anode (118) disposed on one side of the anode compartment.
Regarding claim 9, Cole et al indicate (see fig. 7, paragraphs [0064] and [0073]-[0076]) conducting a step of analysis of the composition of the electrolysis products (i.e. “a composition of the reduced material generated from the cathode module”) and included a monitoring system (e.g. Gas Chromatograph or Spectrophotometer) for performing the analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al (US 2011/0114502) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sideri et al (“Noble-Metal-Free Doped Carbon Nanomaterial Electrocatalysts”).
Cole et al do not teach the cathode electrocatalyst comprised a nitrogen-doped porous carbon with a metal atom coating.
Sideri et al teach (see abstract, section 5) that nitrogen-doped mutli-walled carbon nanotubes (i.e. porous carbon) with single metal atom coatings possessed excellent catalyst properties for carbon dioxide electroreduction. The catalyst were known to be effective for selective reduction to desired products, such as ethanol.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the single metal atom coated nitrogen-doped porous carbon cathode electrocatalyst taught by Sideri et al for the cathode electrocatalyst of Cole et al because Sideri et al teach that the metal-nitrogen-carbon electrocatalyst possessed excellent catalyst properties for reducing the carbon dioxide to compounds such as ethanol (CH3CH-2OH).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al (US 2011/0114502) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fleischer et al (US 2018/0195184).
Cole et al do not teach using a gas diffusion cathode.
Fleischer et al teach (see abstract, fig. 2, paragraph [0074]) that use of a gas diffusion cathode that separated a cathode chamber into a liquid catholyte chamber (“KE”) and a gaseous CO-2 chamber was known in the field of electrochemical carbon dioxide reduction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Cole et al according to the known gas diffusion cathode technique taught by Fleischer et al to achieve predictable results. The elements of the prior art continue to perform their same functions in the combination. See MPEP 2143.I.A. Further, gas diffusion electrodes were well known in the prior art for increasing the size of the three phase interface between the carbon dioxide gas, the liquid electrolyte, and the solid catalyst.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al (US 2011/0114502) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al (US 2017/0271089).
Regarding claim 6, Cole et al do not teach that the separator was a cation exchange membrane.
Ono et al teach (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0013] and [0038]-[0039]) utilization of a cation exchange membrane, especially a proton exchange membrane, as the separator for a carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer, wherein the membrane was capable of increasing migration efficiency of the protons generated at the anode to the cathode for reaction with carbon dioxide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a cation/proton exchange membrane as taught by Ono et al for the separator of Cole et al because Ono et al teach that the proton exchange membrane increased migration efficiency of protons from the anode to the cathode as was required by the system of Cole et al.
Regarding claim 8, Cole et al do not provide details of the extraction system.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have sought out known techniques for separating the desired product (ethanol and/or acetone) from the remaining electrolyte.
Ono et al teach (see abstract, paragraph [0052]), in the field of carbon dioxide electrolysis, that ethanol produced at a cathode by carbon dioxide reduction may be extracted into a xylene solution, with subsequent distillation (boiling point separation) of the ethanol-xylene to more easily recover the ethanol product than from the aqueous solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the xylene extraction with subsequent distillation taught by Ono et al to the system of Cole et al for the purpose of making recovery of the ethanol product from water easier as taught by Ono et al.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al (US 2011/0114502) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gottschling (DE 3539525 A1).
Cole et al do not provide details of the extraction system.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have sought out known techniques for separating the desired product (ethanol and/or acetone) from the remaining electrolyte.
Gottschling teaches (see abstract and upper half of page 4 of the machine translation) the acetone and/or ethanol may be separated from water by using a dimethylpolysiloxane oil that utilized a difference in solubility to extract the acetone and/or ethanol from the water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the known technique of Gottschling to the system of Cole et al to achieve the predictable result of separating the acetone and/or ethanol product from the water based upon a difference in solubility according to the teachings of Gottschling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794